gudaulin

731: Two Versions of Hell is a type of documentary where the impact of the message is based solely on commentary, delivered by a neutral voice, which is in sharp contrast to the emotionally charged content of the film. The visual part could be completely absent, as similar information could be conveyed by a slightly modified radio program. The chosen dual perspective is interesting, saying that with a sufficient degree of cynicism and demagogy, anything can be relativized and justified, including gas chambers and torture devices. The visual component is only complementary, where the lively Chinese city of the present forms a counterbalance to the ruins of a concentration camp and a factory for the production of biological weapons. My overall impression, considering the weak visual aspect, amounts to 60%. However, the chosen unconventional form and provocative interpretation of the same event from the perspective of two warring sides make this a film that should not go unnoticed.

After watching the film, I was reminded of a lecture by a well-known science popularizer who admitted that the motive for the creation of his latest book was not a passion for its subject, but a grant that he happened to receive and that it would not be wise to refuse. I had a similar feeling of "motivation" when it came to most of the participating directors here. It wasn't a dream project that pushed them to the limits of their creative powers, and it wasn't even a commercial thing for which they would risk their reputation with the producer. Most of them approached it like a school exercise, and sometimes I even felt like it was out of obligation. In any case, directorial qualities prevailed over screenwriting - sometimes there was palpable helplessness in that area (Kusturica's alcohol-soaked visit to the film festival). Most film fans will probably choose their own favorite story, but as a whole, 7 Days in Havana, in my opinion, doesn't hold up. It was clear from the beginning that the individual contributions would have different styles and poetics, but I must admit that I didn't expect to feel like I was on a roller coaster or riding a carnival ride when comparing the quality of the stories. Overall impression: 45%.

Fellini's alter ego is bitterly reflected in the film: "I had the impression that I had something to say. Something very simple. I wanted to make a film that would be useful to everyone." The trouble is that at the end of the screening, the viewer may come up with another line that will also be heard: "I have nothing to say at all, but I'll say it anyway." With the passage of years, it is clear that a significant part of Fellini's work was actually about himself, his life, his ideas, and his problems. Fascination with himself is clearly felt in every shot of 8½. Fellini was going through a creative crisis at the time, groping helplessly over how to make the material he intended to shoot. So, he took a step aside, and out of necessity, a film about a director was born, who - well, you can guess. Writing and shooting about oneself is easy. You have first-hand information, and you don't have to compromise or argue with the screenwriter. Fellini does look at himself with irony, but also no longer with distance. The film is about a creator who is admired, an artist who is the center of attention, and this aphrodisiac of fame is something he is already used to and enjoys. The famous Italian director has never been fond of editing, and it must be recognized that only a madman could edit himself. The result was exhausting for me, and soon, the pantheon of characters around the genius began to annoy me and despite my best efforts, I couldn't finish 8½ in one go - it took me two evenings. There was no catharsis at the end, but rather a feeling of relief that I finally got through it. Sadly, I can't give Fellini more than two stars. Besides – he had more than enough fun with himself. Overall impression: 40%.

Greenaway's film is one of those rare cases when, despite my undeniable stinginess, I would be willing to leave the movie theater after half an hour and forget the money because I saved a bit of my increasingly scarce time. The question is: is it possible to make a film that is supposed to deal with the dark sides of the human soul, sexuality, and the lives of wealthy people unrestricted by social conventions in an unbelievably boring way? Yes. Greenaway proves that with a little effort, it can be done. If I were a producer, I would rather burn the money in the fireplace than invest it in a similar spectacle. It is an immensely self-centered and difficult-to-digest film, primarily intended for the festival circuit audience, for the small circle of true intellectuals, and a considerably larger circle of those who think they are intellectuals so that they can eagerly debate the hidden meanings of the film after seeing it. At the beginning, one character asks another: "Do you think leading directors make their films to satisfy their sexual fantasies?" - the other replies: "I think most of them do." If Greenaway made this film to satisfy his sexual fantasies, then he is a very boring and eccentric patron. This film is neither provocative nor spicy, and in no way is it true to life, because I have encountered a fair number of bizarre characters, sociopaths, and nutcases, but I have never come across anything remotely similar to these film characters. Overall impression: 5%.

Attribute, which 8 MM deserves the most, is EFFECTIVE. A story from the porn industry appropriately brutal and repulsive with its subject, featuring a number of twisted characters from the gallery and a decadent high society environment. An energetic and attractive positive hero played by the decently acting Cage, complemented by a diligent sidekick, several skillfully filmed scenes, and an overall depressing tone of the film, all led to an extremely high commercial success and recognition among movie fans. It's not Schumacher's best film, but it ranks among the better ones in its genre. Overall impression: 70%.

Where Wall-E attempts to suggest a depressive post-apocalyptic atmosphere in the first half, 9 fully develops its vision of a world devastated by war and does not care about the moods of the child audience. The visual aspect is amazing and because it usually plays a significant role in my rating, I lean toward a five-star rating, even though I have a problem with the philosophical aspect of the film and consider its outcome unsatisfactory. Where, for example, Avatar has a philosophy that is too primitive, the philosophical dimension of 9 is possibly too complicated and uncertain. 9 depicts the adventures of nine extraordinary beings with a robotic foundation who look like rag dolls combined with the idea of artificial machines from the late 19th century. The retro-stylization, which seems to come from late Jules Verne novels, along with the gloomy visual aspect in shades of brown, is exceptional for an animated film made today and it boldly disrupts the idea of a positively inclined film that parents go to see with their young children. The heroes of the story face monstrous machines, from which hatred and dehumanized evil of technology are evident at first sight, escaping human hands. The creators of the film seem to work with the concerns of today's inhabitants of the developed world, to whom technology seemingly gets on their nerves and they dream of a return to a simple life in harmony with nature. The battle of the dolls with the devilish invention is full of adventurous action and unique effects. The idea that the story should be heading toward is somewhat lost under their fire, but it was still a strong experience for me. Overall impression: 90%.

The Soviet film school essentially produced war films on an assembly line, but 9th Company follows more so the style and content of American war films from the 1980s. In other words, it is a combination of Full Metal Jacket and Platoon, which is also mimicked in the film's title. It is not a cheap imitation, but rather a very solid piece of craftsmanship and, truth be told, one of the best war films of the last decade. Thanks to the large investments in Russian cinema in recent years and coproduction, it is not a financially deprived film either, so viewers can enjoy the military equipment, generously conceived shots of the military base, and large-scale battles. As for casting, acting performances, and directing, I have no significant objections, and for about 70% of the film I thought I was watching a five-star film that stood out for its exceptionally high level of authenticity. I had the opportunity to speak at length with an eyewitness of the Afghan war, who spent eight years in the war zone, and his narrative aligned with the atmosphere of the film. The attack on the transport plane or the ambush of a military convoy in the pass perfectly fits the way the war was fought at that time. The plane destruction scene is also visually impressive. However, the final grand battle comes, which, from the perspective of a popular culture viewer, is again gratifyingly filmed and directed, but it is unrealistic and reminded me of heroic images from the Soviet era, like "the last heroic defenders of Sevastopol resist the fascist superiority." Ultimately, the closing credits depict the nature of this conflict far more soberly when it comes to the number of casualties. Similar open battles were exceptional in the Afghan war because they demonstrated better tactical preparedness and greater firepower of the Soviet army. It is similar, after all, in present-day Iraq. Otherwise, it is interesting to compare this Russian film precisely with American films about the Vietnam War. American films - even those with an anti-war orientation - depict their soldiers as winners, and if an American soldier falls, he must almost inevitably shoot at least ten Vietnamese soldiers before he dies. Russian soldiers die like flies. Bullets find them much more often than they do the Afghan rebels. The primary goal of 9th Company is to portray Russian soldiers as men who are not afraid to die but fulfill their mission and at the same time show that this war was not theirs. Their deployment was decided by the elders of the Central Committee of the CPSU. Today's Russia is not so much following the era of the Soviet Union as it is emphasizing pre-revolutionary Russia and particularly highlighting service to the country and self-sacrifice. At the same time, there is not a single scene in the film where an Afghan civilian clearly dies. The goal of the film is not self-flagellation like in American production; Russian soldiers, after all, fulfill the tasks assigned to them....Overall impression: 80%.

Before watching this I once again remembered how much I disliked Věra Chytilová. Her strong feminism and dominant personality simply don't match my values and personality. Among other things, she said an interesting sentence that "a story is just bait for fools," which she used when there was no other choice because a story is the last thing she's interested in. Maybe that's one of the reasons why we didn't get along, and except for The Very Late Afternoon of a Faun and The Jester and the Queen, I really don't much care for her films. A Bag of Fleas represents, in a way, the opposite of Forman's films, which happen to fascinate me. Both fall under the label of the Czech New Wave, and yet the result is so dramatically different. Her early films remind me more than anything else of directorial exercises at a film school and mapping the possibilities of the film medium. This film about girls in a boarding school is full of banality and resembles a bunch of hens in a small courtyard. Overall impression: 35%.

Abba was the music of my childhood, and this film was specifically associated with their best songs. However, to be honest, apart from those songs, the movie doesn't offer much. The screenplay is weak, and the story itself is almost nonexistent. It only serves as a frail bridge between individual musical numbers. As for the documentary, it is too arranged. Overall impression: 40%.

One could write many superlatives about A Beautiful Mind. It is a very professional film backed by a precise script, well cast and acted, and the direction is inventive and highly professional. The story is emotional and certainly unconventional - to have a mentally ill mathematician as the main character requires some production courage, as similar films do not automatically guarantee easy profits. On the other hand, the professional production approach is a weakness of the film. The lead role was played by a star - the great and handsome Russell Crowe, and, of course, the beautiful and charismatic Jennifer Connelly had to fall in love with him... The film literally overflows with heartfelt dialogues and boundless humanism. But in real life, everything is harder, harsher, and much sadder. I had a mentally ill family member, so I know what I'm talking about. The calculated nature of this blockbuster with its premeditated Oscar success bothered me a bit in this case. I simply cannot give five stars to this very high-quality product, it is too "polished" for that. On the other hand, there are several scenes worth mentioning: the opening play with the reflection of light on the tie is full of humor and the majority of the film unfolds in a similar spirit. Crowe approached his character a bit like the autist from Rain Man, and I'm not sure if that is appropriate for schizophrenia. But with an army of advisors, they probably couldn't have got it wrong... Overall impression 80%.